ISSUE PAPER

HUNGARY: ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION (2000-2002)

All the sources of information contained in this document are identified and are publicly available.

RESEARCH DIRECTORATE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD

OTTAWA, CANADA

May 2003

i

This paper was prepared by the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board on the basis of publicly available information, analysis and comment. All sources are cited. This paper is not, and does not purport to be, either exhaustive with regard to conditions in the country surveyed or conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. For further information on current developments, please contact the Research Directorate.

Research Completed 27 January 2003

Research updated 8 April 2003

ii

Table of Contents

MAP............................................................................................................................................... iii

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. iv

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. ORGANIZED CRIME IN HUNGARY ..................................................................................... 1 2.1 Definition............................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Background............................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Statistical Information 1996-2001......................................................................................... 2 2.4 Crime Trends ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.4.1 Intra and Inter-Group Violence......................................................................................... 3 2.4.2 Drug Trafficking ............................................................................................................... 4 2.4.3 Human Smuggling ............................................................................................................ 5

3. CORRUPTION........................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Victimization ......................................................................................................................... 7

4. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ........................................................................................ 9

5. NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND INSTITUTIONS............................................................. 10

6. ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... 13

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 14

iii

MAP

Source: Open Society Institute and Soros Foundation. “Hungary.”

iv

GLOSSARY

COE Council of Europe

GCDCAF Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces

EC European Commission

EU European Union

HNP Hungarian National Police

ILEA International Law Enforcement Agency

KUM Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Kulugyminiszterium Magyar Koztarsasag)

ODCCP United Nations Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention

OKRI Hungarian National Institute of Criminology (Orszagos Kriminologiai Intezet)

ORFK Hungarian National Police Headquarters SZEBEKK Coordination Centre against Organized Crime

V4 Visegrad Group

1.

2.

INTRODUCTION

This Issue Paper concerns the nature and extent of organized crime in Hungary and the

legislative actions taken by the Hungarian government to combat this type of crime from 1999 to

2002. It updates and should be read in conjunction with a number of Research Directorate

publications, including Responses to Information Requests HUN39730.E of 17 September 2002,

HUN38872.E of 17 May 2002, HUN38994.E of 6 May 2002, HUN37899.E of 18 October 2001,

HUN36401.E of 22 February 2001, HUN31727.E of 27 April 1999 and HUN28974.E of 5

March 1998, all available in the IRB Regional Documentation Centres and on the IRB Website

at <www.irb.gc.ca>.

Current information on organized crime in Hungary is limited among the sources

consulted by the Research Directorate. Specifically, the majority of Eastern European or

Hungarian specialists contacted for this Paper did not, or were unable to, provide current

information on organized crime, corruption or state protection from these activities. In addition,

a Hungarian victimological study focused on organized crime and corruption in Hungary was not

found and one could not be developed from sources consulted. Furthermore, as anti-organized

crime and anti-corruption legal reforms were only recently legislated in Hungary (please see

page 13), a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness was not available at this writing.

ORGANIZED CRIME IN HUNGARY

2.1 Definition

Analysts of organized criminality note that there is no definition of organized crime

generally accepted by governments, criminologists and law enforcement agencies (Dobovsek

1996; US June 2001, 1-2; Beare and Naylor 14 Apr. 1999). The definition used herein is drawn

from the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which Hungary

signed on 14 December 2000 (UNODCCP n.d.) and Hungary’s Criminal Code (Acts IV of 1978

and LXXIII of 1997 (UN 11 Aug. 1999). These documents specify that a criminal organization is

a group of three or more persons engaged, or planning to engage, in continuous organized

criminal activity of a grave or serious nature in order to obtain financial or other material

benefits (UN 2000 Art. 2a; ibid. 11 Aug. 1999).

2

2.2 Background

In the mid-to-late 1990s, economic and social dislocations induced by transition from

communism produced an environment conducive to the growth of organized crime (NATO 14

Apr. 1997; TOC Spring 1997, 81). Former North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special

Rapporteur on Hungary, Gyorgy Csoti observed in 1997 that after 1989 there had been a

quantitative growth in, and a qualitative restructuring of, criminal actions in Hungary (NATO 14

Apr. 1997). In addition, the country’s geographic situation as a major crossroads for East-West

business, travel and communication enhanced its importance to organized crime groups (TOC

Spring 1997, 70; JIR 1 Jan. 2001; COE Dec. 2000, 18). According to Russian organized crime

expert Mark Galeotti, diaspora, particularly Russian, communities already living in Hungary

during this transition provided an opportunity for foreign criminals to build local connections

(JIR 1 Mar. 2000).

2.3 Statistical Information 1996-2001

While not reporting organized criminal activity specifically, the United Nations’ seventh

annual crime trend survey published in 2002 and containing extensive tabulated arrest and

prosecution statistics from 1998-2000, reported a decline of 11 per cent in the total number of

crimes committed in Hungary in 2000 (3 Dec. 2002). Official sources have estimated that there

were between 70-200 active organized crime groups in Hungary between 1996-2000 (Magyar

Hirlap 3 Dec. 2001; JIR 1 Jan. 2001; Hungarian Radio 9 June 1999; UN 11 Aug. 1999; COE

Dec. 2000, 17; ibid. 17 Dec. 1999, 13; ibid. 1 July 1998, 10). Estimates for 1999-2000 indicate

that the total number of criminal gang members was fewer than 2,000 persons (COE Dec. 2000,

17; Magyar Hirlap 3 Dec. 2001). The majority of the groups were hierarchically structured,

small organizations with fewer than ten groups having active memberships of more than 100

individuals (UN 11 Aug. 1999; COE Dec. 2000, 17). A report published by the Hungarian Police

Analysis and Coordination Directorate in 2001, stated that a majority of groups had a strict

hierarchy and individual leadership whereas a fewer number had family-based, ethnic and

networked organizations (Magyar Hirlap 3 Dec. 2001). Most gangs operate in large urban

centres, particularly Budapest (COE 1 July 1998, 17; ibid. Dec. 2000, 17; JIR 1 Jan. 2001), its

downtown area, the suburb of Buds and the settlements around Lake Balaton (Nepszabadsag 25

Oct. 2002).

3

The “ethnic identity” of foreign criminal groups is variously reported as being Yugoslav,

Russian, Ukrainian, Albanian, Turkish, Austrian, Greek, Moldavian, Portuguese, Romanian,

Slovak, Croatian, Arab, Chinese, German, and Sub-Saharan African (CER 30 Mar. 1999; EU

Feb. 2002, 42; Insight on the News 12 Nov. 2001; International Narcotics Control Strategy

Report 2001 Mar. 2002; NATO 14 Apr. 1997, 6-9; UN 11 Aug. 1999; COE 1 July 1998, 59-62).

Those specifically named in reports were the Russian organized crime groups Solntsevskaya

(Manchester Guardian 22 Feb. 2000; Time Europe 8 May 2000; JIR 1 Jan. 2001), Chechenskaya

(American Russian Law Institute 13 Dec. 2000) and Semion Mogilevich's “Red Mafia” (Village

Voice 22 May 1998; Friedman 2000, 237-262; Time Europe 8 May 2000; IACSP Dec. 2001).

2.4 Crime Trends

In a general assessment of the organized crime situation in Hungary, Hungarian National

Police commander lieutenant-general Peter Orban stated at the end of 2001 that the number of

crimes perpetrated by criminal organizations quadrupled during 2001 (Magyar Hirlap 19 Dec.

2001).

Criminal organizations in Hungary have been associated with an assortment of crimes

including, among others, trafficking in drugs and humans, racketeering, prostitution,

counterfeiting, illegal gambling and violent crimes such as murder and assault (Hungary 2000b;

NATO 14 Apr. 1997, 1; COE Dec. 2000). In addition, groups engage in fraud, money

laundering, bribery and corruption (Hungary 2000b; CER 10 Jan. 2000; ibid. 30 Mar. 1999; COE

Dec. 2000). Foreign organized crime groups reportedly control human trafficking, the slave

trade, drug trafficking, the illegal arms trade (COE Dec. 2000, 17, 20) and Russian, Ukrainian

and Balkan groups are noted to have hired Hungarian accomplices to conduct operations in

Hungary, including assassinations (Insight on the News 12 Nov. 2001). Below, Sections 2.4.1–

2.5 focus briefly on violent crimes, drug trafficking and human smuggling, while Section 3

discusses bribery and corruption.

2.4.1 Intra and Inter-Group Violence

According to information submitted by Hungarian officials to the Council of Europe in

2000, the use of violence may be associated with organizational discipline and dispute settlement

within a group or among groups (COE Dec. 2000, 64). Official sources report that 29 of 76

4

crime groups in Hungary in 2000 used violence, including 8 groups which used extreme violence

to manage operations, to force cooperation and/or to maintain discipline and 12 others that used

violence only in disputes with other groups (ibid., 65).

A January 2001 report observed that high profile violent crime decreased in 2000 (JIR 1

Jan. 2001). Before 2001, gang warfare was linked to 150 reported attacks (ibid.; Time Europe 8

May 2000) and a two-year gang war culminated in July 1998 with a car bomb that killed a police

informant and three bystanders in Budapest (Christian Science Monitor 12 May 2000). In

addition, Central European Review (CER) reported on 30 March 1999 that incidents of hired

killings linked to money laundering activity were common in the first quarter of every year. In

1999, Hungarian authorities blamed the lack of a witness protection program for making

“judicial actions” against violent organized crime groups difficult or impossible (COE Dec.

2000, 65). Hungary introduced a witness protection program with Act LXXXV in 2001 (EU

Dec. 2001, 55-56; Meier Sept. 2002, 4). Please see Section 5 for further information on the

witness protection program.

2.4.2 Drug Trafficking

Hungary is considered a major transit country for drugs (International Narcotics Strategy

Report 2001 Mar. 2002; Hungary 2000b; COE Dec. 2000, 28) and, with the reported increase in

the number of Hungarian users, it has also recently become a target country for traffickers (JIR 1

Jan. 2001; International Narcotics Control Strategy Report Mar. 2002). The Hungarian

government considers foreign crime groups that have lived in Hungary for many years as those

controlling the transit and sale of narcotics (ibid.). Interpol reported Hungary to have one of the

highest annual drug internment rates in 2000 (JIR 1 Jan. 2001). According to Hungarian police

commander, lieutenant-general Orban, the number of drug-related offences increased in 2001 by

one quarter with 4,332 registered cases (Magyar Hirlap 19 Feb. 2002) and trafficking was an

increasingly common crime (ibid. 3 Dec. 2001; JIR 1 Jan. 2001).

Hungary is a link in the so-called Balkan Route linking the Balkans, Turkey and Former

Soviet Union (FSU) to Europe (V4 6-9 June 2001; JIR 1 Jan. 2001; COE Dec. 2000, 17; NATO

14 Apr. 1997 6-9). River barges (among other methods) were used to smuggle along the

Danube-Rhine canal system (Transcrime Sept. 1996). Turkish criminal organizations reportedly

set up businesses and firms in Hungary to cover the drug shipments and ethnic Albanians played

5

a significant role in heroin traffic (ibid.). In 2002, a Hungarian law enforcement official

identified Russian, Croatian, Albanian, Yugoslav-Kosovar and Chinese groups as having divided

the country into territories (EU Feb. 2002, 42). African and South American persons were

accused of acting as the suppliers of, or “mules” for, drugs trafficked to Hungarian dealers

(Magyar Hirlap 3 Dec. 2001; NATO 14 Apr. 1997, 7). In addition, Budapest’s Ferihegy

International Airport was considered an important stop for South American cocaine smuggled to

Europe (Country Reports 2001 Mar. 2002; NATO 14 Apr. 1997, 7) and other narcotic links with

Mexico, South and Central America are also noted (Mama Coca Feb. 2002).

2.4.3 Human Smuggling

In 2001, Hungarian authorities considered human trafficking for the purposes of forced

labour, prostitution and illegal migration an increasing phenomenon (Magyar Hirlap 19 Dec.

2001). Hungary is a major transit country for human trafficking to the European Union

(GCDCAF Mar. 2002, 7; Magyar Hirlap 19 Feb. 2002; COE Dec. 2000, 17; ILO 1999, 7;

NATO 14 Apr. 1997), and to a lesser degree a destination (JIR 1 Jan. 2001; COE Dec. 2000, 21;

ILO 1999, 7) as well as a source state (Trafficking in Persons Report 5 June 2002). Similar to

drug trafficking, the Balkan Route is the path of choice for human smuggling (Transcrime Oct.

1996). In 2002, women trafficked through Hungary originated in Romania, Ukraine, Moldova,

Poland, Yugoslavia, and China and were destined for Austria, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands,

Italy, France, Switzerland and the United States (Trafficking in Persons Report 5 June 2002).

Men from Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who were trafficked for forced labour

purposes were also reportedly passing through Hungary and destined for the European Union

(ibid.).

According to Jane's Intelligence Review, Budapest serves as a waypoint for women destined to

the primary regional human trading market in Belgrade as well as a smaller human trading centre

near the Hungarian border with Serbia and Montenegro in Subotica (Nov. 2002, 30-31).

Despite the reported increase in human trafficking, a report published in September 2002

for the European Conference on Prevention and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (STOP

II) noted that the Hungarian parliament had rarely dealt with the issue and generally considered

the subject indirectly and as part of general criminal reforms (Meier Sept. 2002, 9). The US

Department of State also indicated that Hungary was not in full compliance with the minimum

6

anti-human trafficking standards, particularly noting the limited provision of assistance to

victims and the absence of documented application of victim protection law (Trafficking in

Persons Report 5 June 2002). Specifically, the report stated that trafficking victims are often

treated as criminals and there was no reported case where a trafficking victim received

“assistance with temporary resident status, short term relief from deportation and shelter

assistance although such assistance is available to victims who cooperate with police and

prosecutors” (ibid.).

Hungarian border guard official Zoltan Szabo (GCDCAF 20-24 Feb. 2002, 8) noted that

Hungarian Border Guard authorities claimed a 97 per cent human smuggling detection rate in

2001 and during the first ten months of that year 493 persons were arrested (ibid. Mar. 2002, 7).

JIR noted that after Hungary tightened travel restrictions for Moldovans in the late 1990s, the

“incidence of Moldovan women transiting Hungary [had] fallen close to zero” (Nov. 2002, 31).

These arrests account for an increase of 2 per cent from 2000 (ibid.). Hungarian police claim that

in the same period they had launched more than 10,000 human smuggling investigations or

double the number of cases recorded in 2000 (Magyar Hirlap 19 Feb. 2002).

3. CORRUPTION

According to Central Europe Review editor Gusztav Kosztolanyi, flaws and

inconsistencies in Hungarian legislation during the transition period allowed corruption to

flourish (10 Jan. 2000). Hungarian Gallup Institute (HGI) Director, Robert Manchin noted that

corruption is a voluntary act lacking coercion, which differentiates it from extortion or robbery

(HGI 15-17 Nov. 2001). A working definition used by HGI in their corruption surveys (see

below Section 3.1) is an “act of giving or receiving money in return for performance of an

obligation" (ibid. Sept. 2000a).

According to a 2000 interview with the head of the Hungarian secret service minister's

office Gabor Szabo, the connections between criminal organizations and public officers were not

extensive enough to have legal consequences (Nepszabadsag 14 Jan. 2000). This assessment is

similar to an earlier one reported by the Central Europe Review, which described the local mafia

as “rudimentary” and having not yet infiltrated the police, judiciary, politics and the media (30

Mar. 1999).

7

In 2001, Transparency International’s (TI) annual report stated that police corruption was

“high and rising” and typified by free services, the use of service cars for personal use and the

application of fines without issuing a ticket (TI 2001, 43). Hungarian media reports from 2002

cite the practice of police failing to issue a ticket when applying fines for traffic violations

(Nepszabadsag 1 Aug. 2002) and officials considered that the link between organized crime and

official corruption was becoming “more characteristic” of Hungary (Magyar Hirlap 19 Feb.

2002). Transparency International’s (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) assessment in 2002

also suggests this trend (TI 28 Aug. 2002). Reported on a scale of 0-10, where 10 refers to

“highly clean” and where decreases in score illustrate an increase in perceived levels of

corruption, Hungary’s score declined from 5.2 in 1999 (ibid. 27 Oct. 1999) to 4.9 in 2002 (ibid.

28 Aug. 2002), after increasing to 5.3 in 2001 (ibid. 27 June 2001). However, in 2003

Transparency International noted that current levels of corruption in the Czech Republic,

Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, “do not pose a vital threat to the functioning of

democracy, state administration or the market economy” (ibid. 2003, 177).

3.1 Victimization

Magyar Hirlap reported a 20 per cent increase in corruption in 2001 during which 1,500

cases were detected and the number of cases against officials increased from 27 to 89 (19 Feb.

2002). According to the National Police Headquarters, the police report 60 per cent of known

police corruption cases while the remainder come from civilian sources (Nepszabadsag 1 Aug.

2002). The same news article noted 21 police officers were convicted of bribery and 41 of abuse

of authority in 2001 and police authorities claim that the latent nature of this type of crime is the

reason for the low numbers (ibid.). Transparency International highlighted the convictions of two

public servants in November 2001 as an example of the type of large-scale political corruption

that it considers rare in Central Europe (TI 2003, 181). The US Department of State also reports

corruption among Hungarian border guards and customs officials with regard to smuggling and

human trafficking cases (Trafficking in Persons Report 5 June 2002).

A 1998 survey reported that 4 per cent of 251 individuals asked admit to having not

received a receipt from a police officer after a highway check, and a further 5 per cent agreed to

this form of corruption because it benefited recipients with a lack of written evidence

(Nepszabadsag 1 Aug. 2002). Hungarian Gallup reported a series of surveys conducted in 2000

8

that included one on the perception of corruption and its victimization in Budapest, one studying

other municipalities, and one surveying small and medium sized business in Budapest (HGI

Sept. 2000a; ibid. Oct. 2000; ibid. Sept. 2000b). None of these surveys included commentary

directly relating corruption to organized crime.

The municipalities’ survey of 2,521 individuals in Obuda, Erd, Bekescsaba, Paks and

Kaposvar found that four per cent believed that municipal officers expected them to pay bribes,

although only one per cent admitted to having paid a bribe (ibid. Oct. 2000). Gallup Hungary

found wide variations in bribery amounts for this survey noting that the average was 475 forints

(CAN$3.19)1 in Paks while it was 28,582 forints (CAN$192.13) in Obuda (ibid.). In the survey

of small and medium sized businesses, 166 of 520 (31 per cent) firms surveyed reported offers

of, or requests for bribes (ibid. Sept. 2000b). The latter report adds that according to those

surveyed, “the police are aware of only about three of the 166 cases of corruption mentioned in

the course of the survey” (ibid.).

The Budapest survey noted that the most likely individuals bribed or offered to be bribed

in Budapest were police officers, health care workers and private sector managers (ibid. Sept.

2000a). In addition, the Budapest survey suggested that the perceived level of corruption was

higher than the actual rate measured and that the public believed that bribery was necessary to

receive services (ibid.). However, bribery and corruption among police officers accounted for 0.2

per cent of the total sample surveyed, while all other identified public officials totalled just over

0.1 per cent (ibid.). The October 2000 survey report did not note the identity of the other party in

the actual cases of bribery admitted (ibid. Oct. 2000). The business survey also reported that in

almost half of the cases (63 of 148) a public official either requested or was the payee of the

bribe (ibid. Sept. 2000b). In addition, bribery was considered a “general or relatively general

1 All currency conversions in this Paper are based on the 27 January 2003 rate with 1 Canadian dollar equal to 148.77 Hungarian forints (HUF) (Bank of Canada n.d.).

9

phenomenon” in business by one third of respondents; and an above average phenomenon for

middle-sized business in Pest county (ibid.).

4. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Hungary has signed numerous bilateral and multinational agreements concerning

organized crime and corruption including, perhaps most importantly, its 1998 application for

accession to the European Union (Hungary June 2001). Other selected agreements include:

Agreements with the European Union –The development of an efficient and

democratic criminal justice system in the fight against organized crime is considered by the EU

to be an important issue for states engaging in the accession process (SCP 25-26 Oct. 2001).

Hungary has agreed to the following Council of Europe, Europol and Organization of Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) instruments highlighted by the EU in 2002 as necessary

in the criminal matters’ field:

Convention on Money Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds,

Criminal Law Convention on Corruption,

Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions,

Group of States against Corruption,

Police cooperation agreement with the European Police Office, (EU 9 Oct. 2002, 26, 112, 116)

Hungary has not yet signed the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in

Criminal Matters or the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on corruption and has not

ratified the Strategy on Organized Crime (ibid., 116).

Bilateral Agreements – Hungary has signed bilateral treaties with 30 countries regarding

judicial or police co-operation (COE/EU 20 Dec. 2000) and 28 bilateral agreements on cross

border organized crime (EU 9 Oct. 2002, 116). These include the Hungarian/U.S. Six Point

Assistance Plan 1998, which included the opening of an FBI branch office in Budapest (US 23

Mar. 2000; Insurance Day 24 Oct. 2000; Manchester Guardian 22 Feb. 2000; Christian Science

Monitor 12 May 2000) and the Budapest-based International Law Enforcement Academy

(ILEA), which opened in 1995 (ibid.; JPI Fall/Winter 2001, 29-31).

10

Regional Agreements – Hungary is a member of the Visegrad Group, or Visegrad Four

(V4 1 July 2001), the South East European Cooperative Initiative (SECI), also known as East-

Europol (Jane’s Foreign Report 9 Nov. 2000; Insurance Day 12 Dec. 2000; SECI n.d.), and the

Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (SCP 25-26 Oct. 2001). Each of these forums regularly

coordinates and implements regional responses to organized crime (V4, 2000; ibid. 6-9 June

2001; ibid. 2000; SECI 8 Mar. 2002; IFA n.d.; New York Times 24 Aug. 2002).

United Nations – Hungary has signed, but not yet ratified the Convention against

Transnational Organized Crime on 14 December 2000 (UN n.d.) and two of the Convention’s

three supplementary documents, namely the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish

Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and the Protocol against the Smuggling

of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (ibid. 2002). Full text of the Convention and its Protocols may

be consulted at <http://www.odccp.org>.

5. NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND INSTITUTIONS

In 1999-2000, Hungary introduced a reform package targeting organized crime by

amending the penal code with around 90 separate provisions (Insurance Day 1 June 2000).

These reforms had a corollary budgetary increase from 117.4 million forints (CAN$789,000) in

1999 to a proposed 799.0 million forints (CAN$5.371 million) for 2001/2 (Hungary June 2001).

The following is a list of selected legislative reforms and institutions introduced since 1999:

Legislation:

2002

Act LXXV, Amendments to the Anti-Mafia Act of 1999 (EU 9 Oct. 2002, 26, 113).

2001

Act XXXIII, On border protection, entry and immigration (Hungary June 2001).

Act XXXIX, On entry and stay of foreigners (ibid.; Hungarian Helsinki Committee July 2001; EU 9 Oct. 2002, 27-28).

Act LXXXIII, On money laundering (Magyar Hirlap 18 Jan. 2002; Hungary 25 June 2001; Hungarian Banking Association Oct. 2001).

Act LXXXV, On witness protection superceding Res. No. 1074 of 1999 (EU Dec. 2001, 55-56; Meier Sept. 2002, 4; Feher 18 Sept. 2002, 25n.55).

11

2000

Resolution No. 67/2000 (IX. 13.), Ratification of the Criminal Convention of the Council of Europe (ibid.).

Act CI, Ratification of the EU Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from crime (ibid.).

1999

Act LXXV, On organized crime (Hungary, n.d.; ibid. June 2001; IHF 5 July 1999; GCDCAF Apr. 2002, 4).

Act LIV, On co-operation and information exchange with the European Union (Hungary June 2001).

In addition, Transparency International noted that Hungary introduced mandatory asset

statements from public servants, corporate criminal liability in 2001 and was preparing

legislation restricting party financing and the lobbying activities of interest groups (TI 2003,

181-182, 184).

Institutions:

Investigative

Coordination Centre Against Organized Crime (SZEBEKK) acting as a central information unit (Magyar Hirlap 7 Apr. 2001; Nepszabadsag 10 Apr. 2001; EU 13 Nov. 2001, 84) under the Ministry of the Interior (GCDCAF Apr. 2002, 4-5; Hungary June 2001).

Organized Crime Directorate (OCD) of the National Police Headquarters (ORFK) (Nepszabadsag 14 Aug. 2001; Manchester Guardian 22 Feb. 2000; JIR 1 Jan. 2001) including sub-units for anti-corruption (Hungary June 2001), operational support for police and witness protection (EU 9 Oct. 2002, 112).

Sub-units of the ORFK including a unit investigating money laundering (Edgemont Group 7 June 2002; IMoLIN n.d.; EU 9 Oct. 2002, 60) and one specializing in organized auto-theft (ibid. 8 Nov. 2000, 70-71).

Among the non-investigative services recently introduced in Hungarian legislation are the

Victim’s Protection Office (VPO), which works in cooperation with the police, local self-

governments and with non-governmental organizations (Meier Sept. 2002, 10-11). This office

provides funding, information brochures, legal support, and psychological counselling to victims

of crime (EU 13 Nov. 2001, 20; Country Reports 2001 4 Mar. 2002). In addition, according to

12

Lenke Feher of the Institute for Legal Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the

witness protection program introduced by Act LXXXV of 2001 provides

protection to the participants of the criminal procedure, the persons actively supporting the criminal procedure and the persons closely related to the persons mentioned above, whose threatened situation is the consequence of their said relationship and their personal safety demands increased protection by the State. A further objective of the Act, in accordance with the degree of the danger threatening the person in question, is to apply special measures to combat crime, in particular organized crime, and to efficiently apply the interests of crime prosecution and criminal justice.

…

The Protection Program may be applied during as well as after the completion of the criminal procedure. In relation to a crime of a serious nature, an agreement may be concluded with witnesses, injured persons or accused parties participating in the criminal procedure, and co-operating with the authority according to the requirements prescribed by the law. The crimes of a serious nature are the following: in particular crime, where the characteristics of organized crime may be identified, or which are connected with terrorism, blackmail, money laundering, trafficking in drugs and arms, prostitution, paedophilia as well as with crime committed in relation to the above against the life or physical integrity of people.

For the prevention of unlawful acts against the life, physical integrity or the personal freedom of the person involved, the [state] may apply the following special protective measures:

a.) changing the place of residence in order to move the protected person to safe place, or in the case of involving persons under detention and participating in the Program to transport them to another law enforcement institution;

b.) providing personal protection;

c.) ordering suspension of data provision in registers, and requiring the reporting of any request for information in the data registered;

d.) changing name;

e.) changing personal identity;

f.) participation in international co-operation (18 Sept. 2002, 25n.55).

13

The witness protection program and a 31 person special police unit responsible for the

program only recently came into force in April 2002 (EU 9 Oct. 2002, 112). No reported cases of

its use or assessments of its effectiveness were found among the sources consulted.

6. ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The European Union (EU) noted that a very tense internal debate concerning the

seriousness of the organized crime problem in Hungary delayed the legislation of anti-organized

crime policy in 1998 (COE/EU 5 Oct. 1998). Hungarian corruption specialist Istvan Szikinger

and the deputy director of the Organized Crime Directorate observed that the poorly paid police

lacked civilian oversight and had a poor reputation, while the state lacked the legislation and

prosecutorial freedom necessary to effectively respond to organized crime (Christian Science

Monitor 12 May 2000). In 2002, the EU noted that the public still had a poor perception of the

public sphere and its fight against corruption (EU 9 Oct. 2002, 26).

By mid-2000, Insurance Day called Hungary an innovative regional trendsetter in its

financial legislation (1 June 2000). The introduction of the Anti-Mafia Bill reduced the

opportunity, scope (evidenced by a decrease in the number of active groups to 72 from over

100), and level of criminal activity according to a report compiled by the Hungarian police and

SZEBEKK (Magyar Hirlap 3 Dec. 2001). In its 2002 assessment, the EU credited the adoption

of additional legislation and reinforced institutional structures with increasing the efficiency of

anti-organized crime efforts (EU 9 Oct. 2002, 51). The EU highlighted in particular the new

requirement for public servants to account for their assets and the establishment of special units

to investigate corruption within the police force and within the Prosecutor General’s office as

significant steps in the fight against corruption (ibid. 116). However, Dr. Louise Shelley,

Director of the Transnational Crime and Corruption Centre (TraCCC) could not give a definite

answer regarding the outcome of Hungary’s fight against organized crime (25 Sept. 2002). She

noted that although the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) claimed that anti-crime efforts

in Hungary have been a success, others remain concerned about organized crime’s regional

penetration (ibid.).

14

REFERENCES

American Russian Law Institute, New York. 13 Dec. 2000. Congressional Statement of Ralf

Mutschke Assistant Director, Criminal Intelligence Directorate, International Criminal Police Organization - Interpol General Secretariat [to the] Committee of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime December 13, 2000 - “The Threat Posed by the Convergence of Organized Crime, Drugs Trafficking and Terrorism.” <http://www.russianlaw.org/Mutschke.htm> [Accessed 16 Sept. 2002]

Beare, Margaret E. and R.T. Naylor. 14 April 1999. Nathanson Centre for the Study of

Organised Crime and Corruption. “Major Issues Relating to Organized Crime: Within the Context of Economic Relationships.” <http://www.ncjrs.org/nathanson/organized.html> [Accessed 7 Nov. 2002]

Bank of Canada, Ottawa. n.d. Currency Converter.

<http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/exchform.htm> [Accessed 18 Nov. 2002] Central European Review (CER). 10 January 2000. Vol. 2, No. 1. Gustav Kosztolanyi. “A Law

Unto Themselves? White Collar Crime, the Police and Corruption in Hungary, Part One.” <http://www.ce-review.org/00/1/csardas1.html> [Accessed 11 Sept. 2002]

_____. 30 March 1999. Vol. 0, No. 27. Gustav Kosztolanyi. “Prevention and Cure: The

Hungarian Anti-Mafia Laws.” <http://www.ce-review.org/authorarchives/csardas_archive/csardas27old.html> [Accessed 10 Oct. 2002]

Christian Science Monitor [Boston]. 12 May 2000. Daniel Langenkamp. “Budapest and Beyond:

FBI Goes Global.” <http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/05/12/p1s3.htm> [Accessed 18 Nov. 2002]

Council of Europe (COE). December 2000. European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)

(PC-S-CO (2000) 17). Report on the Organised Crime Situation in Council of Europe Member States - 1999. <http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_affairs/Legal_co-operation/Combating_economic_crime/Organised_crime/Documents/Report1999E.pdf> [Accessed 3 Oct. 2002]

_____. 2 March 2000. Council of Europe Press Service. “Hungary Ratifies the Convention on

Money Laundering.” <http://www.europarat.de/european/Pressemeldung/presse_maerz/02-3-hungary.htm> [Accessed 2 Oct. 2002]

_____. 17 December 1999. European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC). (PC-CO (1999)

17). Report on the Organised Crime Situation in Council of Europe Member States -

15

1998. <http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_affairs/Legal_co-operation/Combating_economic_ crime/Organised_crime/Documents/Report1998E.pdf> [Accessed 3 Oct. 2002]

_____. 1 July 1998. European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) (PC-S-CO (2000) 17).

Report on the Organised Crime Situation in Council of Europe Member States - 1996. <http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_affairs/Legal_co-operation/Combating_economic_ crime/Organised_crime/Documents/Report1996E-1.pdf> [Accessed 9 Oct. 2002]

Council of Europe/European Commission (COE/EU). 20 December 2000. Octopus (2000) 51

Final: Country Report - Hungary. <http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_Affairs/Legal_co-operation/Combating_economic_crime/Programme_OCTOPUS/1999-2000/Octopus (2000)51%20CR%20Hungary.asp> [Accessed 2 Oct. 2002]

_____. 5 October 1998. Octopus (1998)15 - Hungary: Final Recommendations and Guidelines

for Action Addressed to the Government of Hungary. <http://www.coe.int/T/E/ Legal_Affairs/Legal_co-operation/Combating_economic_crime/Programme _OCTOPUS/1996-1998/Octopus(1998)15%20-%20Hungary.asp> [Accessed 2 Oct. 2002]

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2001. 4 March 2002. “Hungary.” United States

Department of State. Washington, DC. <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eur/8264.htm> [Accessed 17 Oct. 2002]

Dobovsek, Bojan. 1996. “Organised Crime: Can We Unify the Definition?” Edited by Milan

Pagon. Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Comparing Firsthand Knowledge with Experience from the West <http://www.ncjrs.org/policing/org323.htm> [Accessed 7 Nov. 2002] (used Sec. 2.1)

Edgemont Group. 7 June 2002. “Financial Intelligence Units of the World: Operational Units”.”

<http://www1.oecd.org/fatf/pdf/EGFIUlist2002_en.pdf> [Accessed 16 Oct. 2002] European Union (EU). 9 October 2002. European Commission (EC) (COM (2002) 700 Final).

2002 Regular Report from the Commission on Hungary’s Progress towards Accession. <http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2002/hu_en.pdf> [Accessed 15 Oct. 2002]

_____. February 2002. Poland, Hungary Assistance for the Restructuring of the Economy

National Programmes (PHARE). PHARE National Programmes Highlights No. 4. “On Time, On Target: Training to Combat Organized Crime in Hungary.” <http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/pas/phare/pdf/phare_highlights_four.pdf> [Accessed 8 Oct. 2002]

_____. December 2001. European Parliament (EP). Monthly Pre-Accession Report: Hungary.

<http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/delegation/hung/20020220/13en.pdf> [Accessed 17 Oct. 2002]

16

_____. 13 November 2001. 2001 Regular Report from the Commission on Hungary’s Progress towards Accession. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2001/hu_en.pdf> [Accessed 2 Oct. 2002]

_____. 8 November 2000. 2000 Regular Report from the Commission on Hungary’s Progress

towards Accession. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_11_00/pdf/en/hungary_en.pdf> [Accessed 2 Oct. 2002]

Feher, Lenke. 18 September 2002. “Trafficking in Human Beings in Candidate Countries.”

Paper presented at the International Organization for Migration/European Commission/European Parliament (IOM/EC/EP) STOP Conference On Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings: Global Challenge for the 21st Century, Brussels, Belgium, 18-20 September 2002. <http://www.belgium.iom.int/STOPConference/Conference%20Papers/05.Feher%20-%20IOM%20Final%20paper.pdf> [Accessed 3 Apr. 2003]

Friedman, Robert I. 2000. Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America. Boston:

Little, Brown and Company. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (GCDCAF). April 2002. Working

Paper Series - No. 14. Istvan Szikinger. Armed Control of Civilian Forces in Hungary. <http://www.dcaf.ch/publications/Working_Papers/14.pdf > [Accessed 10 Oct. 2002]

_____. March 2002. Working Paper Series - No. 6. Zoltan Szabo. Border Security Systems: The

Hungarian Case Study. <http://www.dcaf.ch/publications/Working_Papers/06.pdf> [Accessed 10 Oct. 2002]

_____. 20-24 February 2002. “Workshop on ‘Lessons Learned from the Establishment of Border

Security Systems - First Meeting’ Missions, Goals and Objectives for a Modern Border Security System.” <http://www.dcaf.ch/news/II%20workshop_%20corrected%2015.02.pdf> [Accessed 13 Nov. 2002]

Hungarian Banking Association (Magyar Bankszovetseg). July 2002. “Report on the Activities

of the Hungarian Banking Association 2nd Quarter 2002.” <http://www.bankszovetseg.hu/_Toc17178122 > [Accessed 17 Oct. 2002]

_____. 20 February 2002. “Report on the Activities of the Hungarian Banking Association 3rd

Quarter 2001.” <http://www.bankszovetseg.hu/jelentesek_3negyed_en.htm> [Accessed 17 Oct. 2002]

Hungarian Gallup Institute (HGI) [Budapest]. 15-17 November 2001. Robert Manchin.

“Assessment of the Status of Corruption: Discovering the Hidden Society Phenomenon.” <http://www.gallup.hu/Gallup/monitor/en/gsurveys/001124_istambul>[Accessed 13 Nov. 2002]

17

_____. October 2000. “Transparency of Local Governments.” (Gallup Monitor.)

<http://www.gallup.hu/Gallup/monitor/en/gsurveys/010122_municp.html>[Accessed 13 Nov. 2002]

_____. September 2000a. “Victimization Study in Budapest.” (Gallup Monitor.)

<http://www.gallup.hu/Gallup/monitor/en/gsurveys/010118_bpcorr.html>[Accessed 13 Nov. 2002]

_____. September 2000b. “Corruption in the Sphere of Small and Medium-Type Private

Enterprises.” <http://www.gallup.hu/Gallup/monitor/en/gsurveys/010129_business.htm> [Accessed 13 Nov. 2002]

Hungarian Helsinki Committee. July 2001. “Parliament Passes New Aliens Act and Amends

1997 Asylum Act.” < http://www.helsinki.hu/article.cgi?lang=en&fo=2> [Accessed 22 Oct. 2002]

Hungarian Radio [Budapest, in Hungarian]. 9 June 1999. “Some 130-140 Organized Gangs

Operate in Hungary - Police.” (BBC Summary of World Broadcasts 11 June 1999/NEXIS)

Hungary. 25 June 2001. Financial Supervisory Authority (Pénzügyi Szervezetek Állami

Felügyelete: PSzAF). The Hungarian Financial Supervisory Authority’s Recommendations No. 3 of 2002 to Promote the Prevention and Fight against Terrorism and Money Laundering. <http://www.pszaf.hu/english/guide/03-2002.pdf> [Accessed 17 Oct. 2002]

_____. June 2001. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (Kulugyminiszterium Magyar Koztarsasag:

KUM). National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis Hungary. <http://www.mfa.gov.hu/euanyag/NPAA/Cover.htm> [Accessed 17 Oct. 2002]

_____. 2000a. National Institute of Criminology (Orszagos Kriminologiai Intezet: OKRI). Jozsef

Ko. “Corruption in the Light of Statistical Data.” Unofficial Translation by the Hungarian Gallup Institute. (Gallup Monitor.) <http://www.gallup.hu/Gallup/monitor/en/analysis/010528_1ko.html> [Accessed 13 Nov. 2002]

_____. 2000b. National Institute of Criminology. Ferenc Irk. “Secondary Public in Europe’s

Emerging Democracies: Social Aspects of Organized Crime.” <http://www.okri.hu/?lang=gb&menu=archive_secondary> [Accessed 12 Nov. 2002]

_____. n.d. “Fight against Organised Crime.” <http://www.kum.hu/euint/faq4.html> [Accessed

10 Oct. 2002] Insight on the News [New York]. 12 November 2001. Stephen Goode. “Strengthening U.S. -

Hungarian Relations.” (NEXIS)

18

Institut fur Auslandsbeziehungen (IFA). n.d. Hans-Peter Annen. “Statements: The Stability Pact

for South Eastern Europe.” <http://www.ifa.de/dialoge/epecs_annen.htm> [Accessed 23 Oct. 2002]

Insurance Day [London]. 12 December 2000. “Eastern Europe may be Winning against

Organised Crime.” (NEXIS) _____. 24 October 2000. “FBI ‘Super Cops’ Lead the Way in a New War on Organised Crime.”

(NEXIS) _____. 1 June 2000. “Hungary Moves on ‘Dirty Cash’ Threat.” (NEXIS) International Association for Counterterrorism and Security Professionals (IACSP). December

2001. Elisabeth Peruci. “Russian Organized Crime Linked to Osama bin Laden.” <http://www.iacsp.com/releases.html> [Accessed 11 Sept. 2002]

International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF). 5 July 1999. Hungary.

<http://www.ihf-hr.org/reports/ar99/ar99hun.htm> [Accessed 10 Oct. 2002] International Labour Organization (ILO). 1999. International Migration Papers. Judit Juhász.

“Illegal Labour Migration and Employment in Hungary.” <http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/download/imp/imp30.pdf> [Accessed 8 Oct. 2002]

International Money Laundering Information Network (IMoLIN). n.d. “Edgemont Group of

FIUs.” <http://www.imolin.org/fius.htm> [Accessed 16 Oct. 2002] International Narcotics Control Strategy Report 2001. March 2002. United States Department of

State. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Jane’s Foreign Report [London]. 9 November 2000. “Crime in Eastern Europe.” (NEXIS) Jane’s Intelligence Review [London]. November 2002. “Balkan Gangs Traffic 200,000 Women

Annually.” _____. 1 January 2001. Vol. 13, No. 1. Kelly Hignett. “Hungary Takes on the Mafia.” (NEXIS) _____. 1 March 2000. Vol. 12, No. 3. Mark Galeotti. “Russia’s Criminals Go Global.” (NEXIS) Journal of Public Inquiry (JPI). Fall/Winter 2001. Leslie Kaciban and Judson M. Ray.

“International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEA).” <http://www.ignet.gov/randp/f01cont.pdf> [Accessed 3 Oct. 2002]

19

Magyar Hirlap [Budapest, Internet version in Hungarian]. 19 February 2002. Zoltan Gaal. “Number of Corrupt Hungarian Officials Trebled, Police Statistics Show.” (FBIS-EEU-2002-0220 19 Feb. 2002/WNC)

_____. 18 January 2002. Peter Szakonyi. “Hungarian Government Commissioner Views New

Anti-Money Laundering Law.” (FBIS-EEU-2002-0118 18 Jan. 2002/WNC) _____ [Budapest, in Hungarian]. 19 December 2001. “Hungarian Police, Interior Ministry

Report Different Crime Figures for 2001.” (FBIS-EEU-2001-1219 19 Dec. 2001/WNC) _____. 3 December 2001. “Police Detail Methods, Funding Sources of 72 Organized Crime

Groups.” (FBIS-EEU-2001-1203 3 Dec. 2001/WNC) _____. 7 April 2001. “Hungarian Anti-Mafia Center to open 9 Apr.” (FBIS-EEU-2001-0409 7

Apr. 2001/WNC) Mama Coca [Colombia]. February 2002. Bruce Michael Bagley. “Globalization and

Transnational Organized Crime: The Russian Mafia in Latin America and the Caribbean.” <http://www.mamacoca.org/feb2002/art_begley_globalization_ organized_crime_en.html> [Accessed 11 Sept. 2002]

Manchester Guardian Weekly. 22 February 2000. Raymond Bonner. “FBI to Fight Russian Mob

in Hungary.” <http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,230720,00.html> [Accessed 14 Oct. 2002]

Meier, Domink. September 2002. European Conference on Prevention and Combating

Trafficking in Human Beings (STOP II). “The Future Role of Parliaments in the Prevention of Trafficking in Human Beings by Example of the European, German and Hungarian Parliaments.” <http://www.belgium.iom.int/STOPConference/Conference%20Papers/13.%20Meier%20-%20STOP%20Conference.pdf> [Accessed 18 Nov. 2002]

Nepszabadsag [Internet Version, in Hungarian]. 25 October 2002. Attila Gy. Fekete. “Interior

Ministry Issues Hungary’s First Detailed Crime Map.” (FBIS-EEU-2002-1025 25 Oct. 2002/WNC)

_____ [Budapest, in Hungarian]. 1 August 2002. “Attila Szakaly. “Hungarian Report Claims

Supervision Effective Against Police Corruption.” (FBIS-EEU-2002-0802 1 Aug. 2002/WNC)

_____. 14 August 2001. “Hungarian Police Uncover Crime Organization with Fake US Treasury

Bills.” (FBIS-EEU-2001-0815 14 Aug. 2001/WNC) _____. 10 April 2001. “Hungarian Anti-Mafia Center Opens for Business.” (FBIS-EEU-2001-

0410 10 Apr. 2001/WNC)

20

_____. 14 January 2000. Imre Bednarik. “Interview with Hungarian Secret Services.” (FBIS-EEU-2000-0114 14 Jan. 2000/WNC)

New York Times. 24 August 2002. David Binder. “U.S. Coordinates Drug Sweep in the Balkans

and Central Asia.” <http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/aug02/hed5164.shtml> [Accessed 20 Oct. 2002]

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 14 April 1997. Parliamentary Assembly.

Committee Reports [AP 84 CC (97) 7] Gyorgy Csoti. Organised Crime, Drug-Related Crime and Illegal Migration in the Central and East European Region: Draft Special Report. <http://www.nato-pa.int/publications/comrep/1997/ap84cce.pdf> [Accessed 8 Oct. 2002]

Open Society Institute and Soros Foundation. “Hungary.”

<http://www.soros.org/images/maps/hungar.gif> [Accessed 27 Jan. 2003] Shelley, Louise, Director of the Transnational Crime and Corruption Centre, American

University. 25 September 2002. Correspondence. Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI). 8 March 2002. “Activity Report on 2001.”

<http://www.secicenter.org/html/activity%20report/activity%20report%20frameset.htm> [Accessed 20 Oct. 2002]

_____. n.d. “SECI States.”

<http://www.secicenter.org/html/countries/seci%20states%20frameset.htm> [Accessed 20 Oct. 2002]

Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (SCP). 25-26 October 2001.

SPOC Stability Pact Fight Against Organized Crime.<http://www.stabilitypact.org/stabilitypactcgi/catalog/view_file.cgi?prod_id=5510&prop_type=en> [Accessed 20 Oct. 2002]

Time Europe. 8 May 2000. Vol. 155, No. 8. Andrew Purvis. “Crime Busters.”

<http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/0508/fbi.html> [Accessed 11 Sept. 2002]

Trafficking in Persons Report. 5 June 2002. United States Department of State. Washington, DC.

<http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2002/10680.htm> [Accessed 28 Jan. 2003] Transcrime, Research Centre on Transnational Crime, Trento, Italy. October 1996. Working

Paper N. 8. Ernesto U. Savona. Dynamics of Migration and Crime in Europe: New Patterns of an Old Nexus. <http://www. http://www.jus.unitn.it/transcrime/papers/wp8.html> [Accessed 2 Oct. 2002]

21

_____. September 1996. Working Paper N. 7. Ernesto U Savona and Sabrina Adamoli. The Impact of Organized Crime in Central and Eastern Europe. <http://www.jus.unitn.it/transcrime/papers/wp7.html> [Accessed 2 Oct. 2002]

Transnational Organized Crime (TOC). Spring 1997. Vol. 3, No. 1. Alan Wright. “Organized

Crime in Hungary: The Transition from State to Civil Society.” Pp. 68-86. Transparency International (TI). 2003. Martin Brusis, Iris Kempe and Wim van Meurs. “Central

and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.” In Global Corruption Report 2003. <http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2003/2003.01.23.gcr_davos.html> [Accessed 27 Jan. 2003]

_____. 28 August 2002. Corruption Perceptions Index 2002.

<http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2002/cpi2002.en.html> [Accessed 22 Nov. 2002] _____. 27 June 2001. Corruption Perceptions Index 2001.

<http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2002/cpi2002.en.html> [Accessed 22 Nov. 2002] _____. 2001. Crossing the Thin Blue Line: An International Review of Anti-Corruption

Strategies in the Police. Transparency International CR, Prague. _____. 27 October 1999. Corruption Perceptions Index 1999.

<http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2002/cpi2002.en.html> [Accessed 22 Nov. 2002] United Nations. 3 December 2002. “Hungary.” In The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime

Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998-2000). <http://www.odccp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf> [Accessed 17 Jan. 2003]

_____. 2002. Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP). “Signatories to the UN

Convention Against Transnational Crime and its Protocols.” <http://www.odccp.org/odccp/crime_cicp_signatures.html> [Accessed 15 Oct. 2002]

_____. 2000. Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN). United Nations Convention Against

Transnational Organized Crime. <http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/Conventions/dcatoc/final_documents_2/convention_eng.pdf> [Accessed 7 Nov. 2002] (sect. 2.1)

_____. 11 August 1999. Crime and Justice Information Network (UNCJIN). National

Legislation on Organized Crime. <http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/Crtoc/webtocid.pdf> [Accessed 26 Sept. 2002]

_____. n.d. Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP) . “United Nations

Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.” <http://www.undcp.org/odccp/newsletter_2000-11-01_1_page002.html> [Accessed 26 Sept. 2002]

22

United States (US). June 2001. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. James O. Frinckenauer and Yuri A. Voronin. The Threat of Russian Organized Crime. <http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/187085.pdf> [Accessed 7 Nov. 2002]

_____. 23 March 2000. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Congressional Statement. “Statement

for the Record of James K. Weber, Deputy Assistant Director Investigative Services Division Federal Bureau of Investigation on OSCE Initiative on Organized Crime in Southeast Europe Before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Washington, D.C.” <http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress00/osce32300.htm> [Accessed 16 Sept. 2002]

Village Voice [New York]. 22 May 1998. Robert I. Friedman. “The Most Dangerous Mobster in

the World.” <http://ukar.org/friedm01.shtml> [Accessed 10 Sept. 2002] Visagrad Group (V4). 6-9 June 2001. “Regional Legal Meeting to Develop Common

Operational Strategies against Drug Trafficking and Money Laundering among Danube States along Southern Balkan Routes, 6-9 June 2001.” <http://apacje.allytrade.cz/v4/events.php?kdy=69july2001> [Accessed 10 Oct. 2002]

_____. 2000. “Annual Report of the Activities of the Visegrad Group Bratislava - Budapest –

Prague – Warsaw, 2000” <http://apache.allytrade.cz/v4/annual_cont.php?stranka=cooperation> [Accessed 10 Oct. 2002]